Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Why do we think about science on audio?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why do we think about science on audio? - Page 2

post #16 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golden Ears View Post
High end audio is the science of determining how to most effectively fool our senses into believing that something is real which is not- to create something that quite certainly is an illusion and not reality- a facsimile this is indistinguishable from the original.

We are using science to create a perception which is accepted as reality. though clearly is not. In this regard- double blind isn't really an issue...because it is all fake.

And I love it.
YES!

LL
post #17 of 85
to clutz

For an informed discussion of GW by scientists of opposing views go to climatesci.org

There is some background terminology to learn but it very doable.

This is a non political site respected by climate scientists regardless of their view.
post #18 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by wavoman View Post
The "just listen" camp and the "measure the engineering" camp can find common ground with well-designed listener-blind listening tests.

They do not have to be double blind, and they can be done with headphones (no matter what anyone tells you).

It is not hard to smoke out the placebo effect in these tests, through deliberate "fraud" .. a well-known idea in testing (some of the comparisons are not what the listener has been told they are).

You can also separate the golden ears from the wooden ears.

Rigorous statistical analysis can tell us if an effect is audible, even if we cannot measure it with today's scientific instruments (because it might have something to do with the invoked response in the brain ... with MRIs and Cat Scans maybe we could understand better).

This takes planning and a number of people. The stereo magazines rail against blind testing, citing lots of reasons why it doesn't work. I can counter every argument. Besides, they have a clear conflict of interest here.

The pro audio groups do the blind tests, and report nobody can hear any difference between 16/44.1 and 24/96 (which is obviously incorrect), because they average over all responses and they do not avoid some of the blind testing issues that the magazines complain about.

We could do this at meets and CanJam, but in all honesty no one seems interested particularly.
One of the best posts I have read on head-fi. I have very little to add, other than that hopefully the sound science forum can put together some blind testing procedures or people to try.


Quote:
Originally Posted by kool bubba ice View Post
Global warming is BS, and still controversial in thte scientic community. I Believe in intelligent design. I don't believe we evolved fro apes. If true, apes would still be evolving into man..

Science has no business with audio. Musical is emotional , something you can't put under a slab to study... Science doesn't understand sounding warm, cold, etc.. they would go by the frequencies and other hard data that would disconnect us from the music..
And then one of the worst. I just don't know what to say, there's so much wrong here. I hope it was all some kind of tongue-in-cheek joke. Please say it was, and then I can apologise for being too dense to get it.
post #19 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by wavoman View Post
The pro audio groups do the blind tests, and report nobody can hear any difference between 16/44.1 and 24/96 (which is obviously incorrect), because they average over all responses
If you refer to the M & M study your statement is not true. In the M & M study it was not a matter of averaging.

Quote:
The “best” listener score, achieved one single time, was 8 for 10, still short of the desired 95% confidence level. There were two 7/10 results. All other trial totals were worse than 70% correct.
There were well over 500 trials and over 50 subjects.
post #20 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomjtx View Post
to clutz

For an informed discussion of GW by scientists of opposing views go to climatesci.org

There is some background terminology to learn but it very doable.

This is a non political site respected by climate scientists regardless of their view.
When they stop getting grant funding from various governments and political organizations, I'll stop taking what they say with grains of salt.

This site is pretty good though. It makes a lot of sense. Like most things in life, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
post #21 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by wnmnkh View Post
Now, my question is, how can we possibly ignore science on audio field when the very basic core of audio itself is made of pure science? How can we talk about a thing without mentioning and applying the core of the thing?
Because science doesn't take preference into account. Specs wise, something may be better, but it doesn't matter how good it is, if you don't like the way it sounds, it's not better to YOU.

Science is good for proving things in absolute. But when a topic is subjective, science is useless. You can't tell me why scientifically I'm physically attracted to one person over another...it's subjective. You may think that person is "meh..." when I may think she's the prettiest thing on the planet.

Or the fact why many people think one amp sounds better than the other, when specs wise, one is actually LOWER in "quality" of parts.

It's all subjective. And subjectivity puts science to rest. AKA, forget the science, just listen to the music....
post #22 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by oicdn View Post
Because science doesn't take preference into account. Specs wise, something may be better, but it doesn't matter how good it is, if you don't like the way it sounds, it's not better to YOU.

Science is good for proving things in absolute. But when a topic is subjective, science is useless. You can't tell me why scientifically I'm physically attracted to one person over another...it's subjective. You may think that person is "meh..." when I may think she's the prettiest thing on the planet.

Or the fact why many people think one amp sounds better than the other, when specs wise, one is actually LOWER in "quality" of parts.

It's all subjective. And subjectivity puts science to rest. AKA, forget the science, just listen to the music....
Subjectivity is an illusion in the minds of man. The physical world is governed by objective axioms. You can't compare the two and it doesn't make sense that one puts the other to "rest" -- they both exist in their own respective rights. The real interesting thing to think about is which governs the other -- Are we to deny the proof of the self-evident physical world seen all around us and proclaim ourselves as sole proprietor to everything? That seems like a very arrogant point of view to me.
post #23 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lapwing View Post
Are we to deny the proof of the self-evident physical world seen all around us and proclaim ourselves as sole proprietor to everything? That seems like a very arrogant point of view to me.
But that self-evident world is only knowable through our perceptions. There is always an observer in the system.
post #24 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by JadeEast View Post
But that self-evident world is only knowable through our perceptions. There is always an observer in the system.
Haha, what a perfectly appropriate smiley!

What you say is true. The caveat is that the "knowledge" our perceptions are observing -- that knowledge points to our own creation from the physical world and not from ourselves. To be a bit more concise: The physical world gives us a description of our own creation whereas the world of our own perception has no beginning or end in sight.
post #25 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by oicdn View Post
Because science doesn't take preference into account. Specs wise, something may be better, but it doesn't matter how good it is, if you don't like the way it sounds, it's not better to YOU.
However, if you can pin down how to measure the imperfection you like, technical analysis can still net you something. For me, since there are no hi-fi stores around here (that I can find anyway), my audio purchases have been and will be primarily online, and I won't have the chance to audition most of what I buy before I buy it. Of course, researching a product, I gather subjective opinions, but the graphs and analysis may show something that is a deal-breaker for me that doesn't bother all the people giving glowing reviews.

It's certainly not as optimal as hearing everything first, but unfortunately that's not always an option.
post #26 of 85
I'm tempted to put my "philosopher of science/epistemologist" hat on and contribute to the conversation on what science is and does, but I think there's a more important role to play. I think the claims that science is purely pragmatic (i.e., it generate good predictions used to invent technologies) is false both historically and philosophically, but that's not my battle today. I'll leave you to read up history and philosophy of science for yourselves.

Instead, I'd like to apologize on behalf of religious people. I am unapologetically a Christian, and unapologetically a scientist. I have the difficult job of studying religious belief, in fact. More specifically, I look at the evolutionary roots of religious belief. The more astute of you can see where this is going. Furthermore, I am interested in ethics, and how Christian theology contributes to it. Inevitably, environmental ethics comes into play.

Now, we're not allowed to discuss politics and religion on this forum, and for good reason. So, I'm not going to make any arguments. But I am going to apologize: If any of you have come across my Christian brethren who have been anti-science and anti-intellectual, I'm sorry. We're not all Darwin and Global Warming deniers. And we're working on it, on convincing the others.
post #27 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonathanjong View Post
I'm tempted to put my "philosopher of science/epistemologist" hat on and contribute to the conversation on what science is and does, but I think there's a more important role to play. I think the claims that science is purely pragmatic (i.e., it generate good predictions used to invent technologies) is false both historically and philosophically, but that's not my battle today. I'll leave you to read up history and philosophy of science for yourselves.

Instead, I'd like to apologize on behalf of religious people. I am unapologetically a Christian, and unapologetically a scientist. I have the difficult job of studying religious belief, in fact. More specifically, I look at the evolutionary roots of religious belief. The more astute of you can see where this is going. Furthermore, I am interested in ethics, and how Christian theology contributes to it. Inevitably, environmental ethics comes into play.

Now, we're not allowed to discuss politics and religion on this forum, and for good reason. So, I'm not going to make any arguments. But I am going to apologize: If any of you have come across my Christian brethren who have been anti-science and anti-intellectual, I'm sorry. We're not all Darwin and Global Warming deniers. And we're working on it, on convincing the others.
Well put.
Are you familiar with Pierre Teilhard de Chardin? I think you may relate with him quite well.
post #28 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by oicdn View Post
Or the fact why many people think one amp sounds better than the other, when specs wise, one is actually LOWER in "quality" of parts.

It's all subjective. And subjectivity puts science to rest. AKA, forget the science, just listen to the music....
Well, yes.

But if you ignore your measurements, and your specs, and your percieved "quality", and you still can't pick out what you think sounds better, or even different, in a blind trial, then your subjectivity seems like a pretty flimsy platform to me.
post #29 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lapwing View Post
Well put.
Are you familiar with Pierre Teilhard de Chardin? I think you may relate with him quite well.
Yea, not a bit fan I'm 'fraid. But still, he's an important thinker in the science-religion field.
post #30 of 85
WOW, I can't believe that I am able to participate in a good thread with intelligent conversation, people thinking, intelligent people thinking, before it is closed.
I understand what you're saying, jonathanjong, we are working on it also, tonight as a matter of fact (The Truth Project).
This is absolutely fantastic (I don't witness much 'live' intelligence often)!!!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Why do we think about science on audio?